The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-08-03

The July session OF the Law Court adjourned
gued during the term forty-eight cases and forty
two submitted on briefs. The following decisions
with rescrip.s were entered .-
KENNEBEc COUNTY.
Carrie NJ Cilley VS.. Frank E. Cilley and tr.
Dismissed from this docket
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Jacob G. Baker VS.. F. P. Waterhouse Excep-
tions by defendant overruled.
KNOX COUNTY.
George L. Snow VS.. Leander Weeks. Motion by
In all the State cases that have not been argued
OF submitted on briefs, exceptions were ovenuled
and Judgment entered for the State.
ANDRoscoGGIN COUNTY.
Charles C. Hebbard vs. Alvin Record.
ReScrtpt-lt is the opinion OF the Court that the /
verdict is not SO clearly against the weight of the
ing new trial. Motion overruled.
:, Charles B; Plummer, administrator, .,d5ay
RescItgETwo actions we-@.-i tried - the s.me
time and by the sam" : ~ lrleo AZ Tue same
turned for the Jury. A verdict was re-
are heso~ eff in each case. The cases
> Law Court on exceptions by the
1t is the opinion of the Court that the
ptions disclose no errors in the rulings of the
Dresiding Judge. Exceptions oyerruled.
Sse a p1oa BeA an sD4sb from as Seess
from the decree of Judge of Probate.
Rescrtpt-In Probate appeal, IF any question
may be formed (framed) for that purpose under
the direction of the court, and SO tried" r: s..
tidp. OOs $50. lut COuEt ID VI OplHlOu tildt WHICH
such issue has been framed the Court has power
to order change of venue for trial of the same.
Exceptions sustained.
Rescrfpt-The exceptions must be sustained. 1t
Is the opinion of the court that upon the evidence
or not the plaintiff warranted the horse sold by
him to the defendant The Judge took it from the
no evidence in the " case which Would warrant
them IN finding that the plaintiff warranted the
horse" This was erroneous, 1t is the opinion
of the nOurf that the dafQndanfss
believed by the jury, would warrant them in find
ing such warranty.
Exceptions sustained and new trial granted.
Julia X. Parlln ct al: VS.. Jeremiah M. Burbank.
Hescrfpt-The presiding justice, in his charge 10
the Jury fully covered and in substance gave the
requested Instructions.
The evidence was sufficient to authorize the
Motion and exceptions oyerruled.
Geo. N Noyes ct al vs. Ellen L. smith, admins
Rescript-The objections in this case are to the
admission of certain evidence alleged by the
plaintiff TO be except0nabie. The bill OF ex-
ceptions does not enable to see that the plain
tiff was aggr1eved by the evidence objected to.
The defendent was permitted to swear to the
contents Of letter. But the contents of the let
the plaintiif or not, does not appear. Its objec-
ted that officers in the keeping Of records were
allowed TO testify to the showing of the records
as to certain property dealings of one of the par
ties. In what connection and for what purpose
admitted, is not stated. 1t is not enough for
bill OF exceptions to state that the evidence was
admitted under objection. 1t must somehow APP
pear that the evidence was admitted to the injury
OF the party complaining Of its admission.
Other points in the exceptions are not relied on.
OXFORD COUNTY.
John ?. Swasey, administrator, VS.. Hezekah
Ames ct al.
Rescript-Although one party to a suit be the
representative Of deceased person, the other
party may be witness in his own behalf as to
matters happening after the DEATH Of such de-
Robert G. Wiley vs. Abner Davis
Rescrtpt-The bill seeks to obtain title TO an in
terest in real estate from the administrator of the
person by whom, when alive, it is alleged the es-
tate was held In trust for the complainant. The
allegations are not proved unless the complainant
do because the administrator did not see fit to tes-
tify; Furthermore the heirs should have been
such case the same objection would lie against
allowing the complainant to testify.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
C. II. Boothby VS.. John w. Lane.
Rescrtpt-It IS the opinion of the court that there
is some evidence of a conversion of the property
by the defendant. The jury committed no mis-
take which we feel we should grant new trial
for
Dennis A. Meaher ct al. VS.. Henry NJ Howes
Rescript-The ruling that the bill could be main
tanned without tender was correct. 1t is true
that to support bill In equity to redeem real es-
tate under mortgage, without first making tender
of the amount due upon the mortgage the plain
tin must aver and prove that he has been pre-
the defendant So held in Dinsnore re- vs. Savage e.
6S Maine, 191. But in this case the plaintiff has
aVerred ana proved tnat he was so prevented He
demanded of the defendant true account of the
amount due upon the mortgage and received in
reply false account, an account which contained
items to large amount which were not due upon
the mortgage, and which the plaintiff was under
no obligation TO pay in order 10 redeem. Such an
account is, in the opinion of the court false ac-
count and will justify the commencement of a
suit in equity to redeem without first making a
tender Of the amount due upon the mortgage.
Exceptions oyerruled.
YORK COUNTY.
Charles N. Bradbury, Aplt., VS.. b. F. Place.
Rescrtpt All contracts, except for neceSsarieS,
and all gifts, sales, transfers of real or personal
estate, made by a person under guardianship are,
IN tnls state, void; not ayodable merely. but alb
sou sS9,iiuter VOID, So declared by R. S. c. 81 81.
Inc note In suit was once the property of per
son under guardianship and the amount due upon
II has been paid TO the guardian. The plaintiff is
not bona hde holder, and he does not show that
me person from 81. whom he took it was bona-dde
was dishonored. He did not Know that the Havee
was under guardianship, but lie knew the mote
was overdue, and he does not deny that he knew
the payee was person of unsound mind and in
capable Of managing his property. 1T IS the opin-
ion of the court that the action is not nantaina-
bic, and that judgment must be entered for the
Aafo NaaS